Ignatius Supriyadi conveying his arguments for the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, Monday (5/9/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Monday, May 9, 2022 | 12:55 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court on Monday, May 9, 2022. The petition for case No. 56/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Ignatius Supriyadi.

The Petitioner challenges Article 27A paragraph (2) letter b of the Constitutional Court Law, which reads, “In order to enforce the Code of Ethics and the Code of Conduct for Constitutional Justices as referred to in paragraph (1), a Constitutional Court Ethics Council shall be formed, the membership of which shall consist of: b. 1 (one) member of the Judicial Commission.”

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Petitioner alleged that the provision defied legal certainty. He asserted that previous Constitutional Court decisions had ruled that the Judicial Commission had not played a role in or been involved with the Constitutional Court.

“The Judicial Commission is an external institution whose establishment based on Article 24B of the 1945 Constitution did not correlate with the Constitutional Court. Thus, if the Judicial Commission members are involved as members of the Court’s Ethics Council, it is against previous Constitutional Court rulings and, of course, the original intent of Article 24B of the 1945 Constitution,” he said virtually.

As an advocate who often litigates at the Constitutional Court, the Petitioner believes that the provision has led to legal uncertainty for advocates as, in addition to hindering their professionalism, it also inconsistent with previous Court decisions.

“Therefore, this [provision] must be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding,” he stressed.

In his petition, the Petitioner also asserted that the provision had not reflected legal certainty as mandated in Article 1 paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 28D of paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution since it involved the Judicial Commission in the establishment or membership of the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (MKMK), when the Court should not be involved with or dependent upon the KY. He emphasized that such involvement would be unconstitutional.

Justices’ Advice

After the petition was conveyed, the panel of justices dispense with their advice. Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul suggested that the Petitioner added an elaboration on his legal standing.

“It could be added that the Judicial Commission is a state institution which, in the event of an interagency authority dispute, [it] could very likely be one of the parties that would be examined by the Court,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh reminded that the Petitioner reconsider the impacts if the a quo article be declared unconstitutional. “An alternative could be devised,” he said.

Before concluding the session, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat (panel chair) reminded the Petitioner that he had until Monday, May 23 to revise the petition and submit it to the Court at the latest two hours before the next hearing commences.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/9/2022 14:16 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---